[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] Fernando Rey's exploration of "sense"
- To: Haydi Zulfei <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [xmca] Fernando Rey's exploration of "sense"
- From: Larry Purss <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 07:06:38 -0700
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=FeTgaye1e3bXRu2W4+87VHWCTIBRgfk2+1WCZJ0KTeM=; b=K9hr75t0HC0bQv81NqxcIxlhTZCvjVIA+L2KV9xZn6swtVF9MLwih0y63egdbS/E77 oYb1VRouE0d0WItGG73kbbwQnZuetFTzrVO3tRE9rR3xgcGBMDrseB5EkKEaYhPBJgcl qCLvYVMR0AEYMZZE0D+B6hswMRZXMZvx6eMfs=
- In-reply-to: <1312281556.71660.YahooMailNeo@web46401.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:email@example.com>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
- References: <CAGaCnpwhsvC+OFjajk8HA4m+ooqqfK0-e=BGSys_0fCCVmCryw@mail.gmail.com> <1312281556.71660.YahooMailNeo@web46401.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
- Reply-to: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Sender: email@example.com
Thanks for replying.
I didn't make clear in this post that I was summarizing the six themes that
Martin was suggesting we pay attention to when reflecting on the formation
of subjectivity. It is Martin who suggests that the first 3 tropes are more
established and recognized assumptions within Cultural-historical [and
sociocultural] frameworks. The last 3 tropes may be more confusing because
they have not been as thoroughly discussed as the first 3 tropes. Martin is
drawing our attention to the significance of these last 3 tropes as a way to
deepen our understanding of the formation of personality, character,
subjectivity, or the kind of person one BECOMES.
Haydi, I reference Martin often because he has called himself "The ontology
guy" and I read Martin as attempting to weave phenomonological assumptions
and cultural-historical assumptions into a single tapestry. The articles
I'm referencing are now a decade old and Martin will have to speak to how
central he believes the 6 tropes continue to be. The specific phrase "kind
of person" I believe comes out of phenomenological frameworks and points to
"being and becoming" as ontological. Martin's writings point to a
distinction between ontological and epistemological forms of inquiry.
However, in practice a change in knowing and a change in being are 2 sides
of a single coin. It is this linking or interweaving of "becoming" and
"knowing" as a SINGLE UNITARY process of (con)figuration that Martin
is pointing to.
Interweaving knowing and becoming [epistemology and ontology] within a
single dynamic process of (context)figuring using the 6 tropes is what
Martin is "showing" us as involved in the forming of a way of life & KINDS
of persons. I'm using Martin's terms [terms I also read in other
phenomonological writings] to enter a hermeneutical circle of
Haydi, my writing style itself may be confusing and for that I will struggle
to improve my clarity. However, the attempt to interweave phenomenological
and cultural-historical perspectives into a unity narrative may also be
causing some confusion. I wonder if Fernando Rey's article is also
attempting to explore this interweaving sitof sense and meaning as BOTH
ontological and epistemological [becoming and knowing]
The use of particular words in different traditions make sense within
different SYSTEMS of meaning and one approach would be to attempt to stay
within that traditions system of terms [1i.e. "operations" below awareness,
"action" under conscious intentional volition, "activity" etc.]. This would
create less confusion. However, there is a case to be made for attempting
to "translate" BETWEEN traditions. Confusing, I agree. However, though
challenging and causing predicaments, this latter approach allows some
flexibility in shifting perspectives and seeing with binocular vision if the
eyes can bring into focus the alternative perspectives or traditions. David
Ke in describing Vygotsky as pouring new meaning into old terms was a master
at this strategy.
On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 3:39 AM, Haydi Zulfei <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't usually understand your messages though I try always
> to read them through , long and continuous as they are . My ignorance might
> be the cause for all this ; However the "desire" will never get extinguished
> My support here comes from Martin's writing which happily smacks of the
> "Activity Theory" .
> Practical activity FORMS a social context ; The SOCIAL CONTEXT constructs
> the PERSON . We have this in Marx's thesis 1 , too . We cannot leave Nature
> , the outside world , things external to us , reality , pure , intact ,
> untouched , to themselves and claim things , processes , phenomena being
> objective . We should take them SUBJECTIVELY . This SUBJECTIVELY or
> SUBJECTNESS is not what we mean by "ideally" or "mentally" . It's the
> SENSUOUS ACTIVITY OF THE SUBJECT WITH NATURE .
> It's quite acceptable then that "culture" , "language" are born within or
> out of this process .
> And if we believe in "dialectics" , it's quite certain that , in a reverse
> trend , language and culture are employed to operationalize the things of
> reality . And I suppose it's on this reverse trend that you are discussing
> the change of the KIND of person you mean . On behalf of Martin , you begin
> with the initiation of the process of even constructing person through
> PRACTICAL ACTIVITY but end in such a jargon as if the differntiation of
> people has its roots in "desires" , "ideas" , "culture" . Then the whole
> problem is : NOT to detach the "secondaries" from the "primaries" , say ,
> THE BASE . Language serves us profoundly when it is detached from what it
> signifies ; however , it's not the navel which could be cut off once for
> ever .
> If you say kinds of persons come or are constructed from diversion of
> "ideas" , first I say yes . But promptly I add "ideas" do not come from
> genes or null . Culture never gets perfect independence or for ever fixed
> because it's the sedimentation , reification , accumulation of the products
> of the experiences of the PRACTICAL ACTIVITY .
> In 5 below and with the bolded word CONTRADICTARY demands and the "split"
> therefrom , A.N. Leontiev long ago exposed and disentangled the knot by his
> definitions of the "social meaning" and "persoanl meaning" .
> And 6 below : Yes , through "personal meaning" a person searches for
> his/her identity and character formation . Again we should be aware always
> of the birthplace of these two kinds of meaning .
> And again , Yes , the attitude formed in relations of recognition
> CONSTRUCTS the KIND of person society needs to raise . Person generally and
> predominantly exposed to Capitalist Instruction and Schooling cannot fully
> differentiate between Master and Slave . She boasts of her dear country's
> superjets and heavy bombardmensts over people's Land of Libya leveling it to
> a handful of dirt and dust leaving freedom-loving people in wonder if oil is
> behind the curtain or a dictator corpse .
> From: Larry Purss <email@example.com>
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2011 9:00 AM
> Subject: [xmca] Fernando Rey's exploration of "sense"
> The word "sense" is a KEY word in Fernando's article.
> I want to bring in Martin's notion of "ontological tropes" as a way to
> reflect on this key term in his exploration of the ontology of learning. He
> suggests that six themes or six different ontological tropes that account
> for an understanding of learning as a change of the KIND of person as well
> as a change in the structuring of knowledge.
> 1) the person is constructed [RE-constructed]
> 2) in a social context
> 3) formed through practical activity.
> Martin suggests these 3 themes are well developed within the exploration of
> learning as a change of the person. However, it is the next 3 themes which
> I believe can be elaborated to deepen Fernando's notion of "sense".
> 4) Formed in relationships of desire & RECOGNITION [this is where I believe
> John Shotter's writings add depth to the conversation]
> 5)that can split the person [schools emphasize on "abstraction" and
> objectivication as ways of knowing make CONTRADICTORY demands and create a
> split in our experience of "sense".
> 6)MOTIVATING [moving] the search for identity and character formation. The
> child as "student" MUST RESPOND ACTIVELY in either alighnment or
> opposition. What we call ATTITUDE is THIS ACTIVE STANCE towards the
> institutional situation of development. This stance IS an ontologically
> DETERMINATIVE stance. Schooling is ALWAYS ABOUT "attitude" formed in
> relations of recognition.
> It is these last 3 themes of the SUBJECTIVE aspect of our development as
> persons that the term "sense" is exploring.
> What do others think?
> xmca mailing list
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list